If I were king, my rule would be to look at the number of citations per paper and years of citation, rather than total publication count. I think that would solve a number of issues, although I'm sure that it would eventually be gamed as well.
I should mention though: It turns out that people have been bitching about this for decades. For example: I was at Bell Labs in the 90s, and there was regular lunchtime discussion about the Least Publishable Increment (LPI). Everyone had some example about how the LPI had decreased to near zero, and then a few wags went on to show how the LPI had in fact gone negative in certain subfields, not least because reviewers were overloaded and couldn't keep up.
Hopefully, some of this will be self-correcting: Publications are no longer the money-making activity they used to be, so resources will begin to dry up. Eventually, pubs are going to start rejecting valid papers for being too incremental.